Memeorandum

March 05, 2012

A Strange Softening

The NY Times describes Eric Holder's views on targeted assassinations with a headline that cushions the blow to their readers:

U.S. Law May Allow Killings, Holder Says

It "may" allow killings, or then again, it may not? Did Eric Holder really go all John Kerry on this?

Keep hope alive, all you libs who hated Bush for shredding the Constitution. But per the story, Eric Holder said that US law does allow targeted killings:

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted on Monday that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Mr. Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

Hmm - not "they may have authority", but "clear authority". I guess cognitive dissonance overwhelmed the Times headline writers.

While Mr. Holder is not the first administration official to address the targeted killing of citizens — the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, did so last month at Yale Law School, for example — it was notable for the nation’s top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. Mr. Holder’s remarks about the targeted killing of United States citizens were a centerpiece of a speech describing legal principles behind the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies.

“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” Mr. Holder said. “This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

No "may" about it. And we can all be grateful that it is not Bush making these arguments or libs would be leaping from window ledges.

Mr. Holder’s speech has been planned since last fall, when questions were first raised about the Obama administration’s legal justification for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born radical Muslim cleric who died in an American drone strike last September. The administration has rejected bipartisan calls to release a secret memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which signed off on killing Mr. Awlaki. Mr. Holder’s speech was designed to offer the public some explanation of the government’s reasoning.

Still, the speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo — or in an account of its contents published in October by The New York Times based on descriptions by people who had read it.

The 'torture' memos released by Holder and Obma were vital to an informed public Bush-bashing debate. But the assassination memos? Not so topical.

Go long botox - lots of libs will be desperately trying to keep a straight face defending these guys.

Comments

I know that what turned me against the Democrats for life was the way they treated President Bush after 9/11 when he was moving heaven and earth to protect and defend us carrying the added burden of an incompetent, antagonistic intelligence service and a perfidious state department.

Agreed, Clarice. There came the distinct moment when the Democrats looked at how the U.S.came together and decided that politics trumped love of country. Someone pulled the lever. Who were those "deciders"?

This is one of those rare cases where the far left loons like Greenwald at least have the cojones to remain consistent and it's the "mainstream" liberals who called for Bush's head on a pike who now coo about what a heroic defender of the faith Barry is.

"A friend lived not too far from Cuesta Park"
Mountain View is not so large that any part is far from any other...My kid took tennis lessons at Cuesta Park.
It became a semi-dangerous park for a while but I think it's under control now.
LUN

Of course Holder won't release the memo. Somebody might try to disbar the author--as they say what's good for John Yoo is good for the poor fellow who wrote what Holder wanted.

Holder waltzs around here and says that ol Anwar was entitled to "due" process, just not "judicial" process. But he doesn't actually describe any process or any criteria--which were presumably outlined in the assassination memo.

Surely even someone who's as big a dolt as Eric Holder can't believe that the entire absence of process is "due" process in the President decides you need to be killed.

"I called her office Friday looking for an interview...She regretted her recent vote."

"I have never had a vote I've taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me," she said.

"If you had it to do over again, having had the weekend that you had with women being upset about the vote, do you think you would have voted the same?" I asked Lisa Murkowski.

"No," she said."

"You know, I don't adhere to all of the tenets of my faith (Catholic). I'm a Republican, I don't adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party," she said. "I'm also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current."

" It was supposed to be a vote for religious freedom, she said, but to female voters back home it looked like a vote against contraception..."That's where I feel like I have let these women down is that I have not helped to give these women the assurance they need that their health care rights are protected."

Uncharacteristically careless reading, TM. The headline was about "U.S. Law", which requires an act of Congress. (In some cases it also requires Supreme Court affirmation of the constitutionality of the law, but targeted killing is just a mandated cessation of all economic activity, obviously covered under the Commerce Clause.) The quote from Holder was about "the government", which clearly means the executive branch. This President's authority is not constrained by U.S. law. He has the kingly right of divines.

Rereading the ADN story I realize that Lisa does not think. She feels.

She says, "It was supposed to be a vote for religious freedom but to female voters back home it looked like a vote against contraception." So which was it Lisa? Can you give us a hint? If it was a vote for Religious Freedom, then why regret your vote? Because a pack of uninformed women at the Saturday Dog race were ignorant enough about the issue of Religious Freedom to be angry at you? Is that enough to overturn the First Amendment? Apparently so.

Then later, "...where I feel like I have let these women down is that I have not helped to give these women the assurance they need that their health care rights are protected." Well were their Health care rights protected or not in this vote Lisa, regardless of whether you feel you gave them your assurances? Who knows? You certainly can't tell her opinion about that, one way or the other, from reading this pile of drivel in the ADN.

All I can tell for sure from this story is that Lisa Murkowski is concerned with appearances, cosmetics, and feelings of assurance. Thought, logic, facts, the Constitution, that stuff doesn't matter. Feelings is the nub of it. What a mental mess. And this from the woman who told us that her opponent, who led a tank Battalion into Iraq in Gulf War 1, was "unfit to serve" as Senator.

"By any chance did you used to be a regular caller in the early to mid 90's to 560 KSFO"
No, I was only ever a listener, on the morning drive to work. Lee Rogers (Rodgers?) hosted. Now we have the energetic Brian Sussman. I don't recall a Jim Eason at all...come to think of it, I probably didn't listen before 9/11.
I see JOMers mention various locales, is there a NorCal contingent?

"I'm also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current."

Current?...well, I don't even know what to say.
Along those lines - in these 'current' times, it is hard to believe anyone could get in trouble for using the word 'slut'. It is like the Theater of the Absurd here in America. All the filth & vulgar language on TV, in music, in theater, movies, books....& Rush Limbaugh is being hunted down for using the word 'slut'?

So Eric Holder says 'Bam can Hellfire a US citizen w/o a warrant or judicial determination. OK. Many movie quotes come to mind: Eric 'the bandito' Holder: "warrants? we don't got no warrants! we don't need know stinkin' warrants! we ain't gonna show you no warrants!" or Eric "Hedley Lamarr" Holder: "My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives to the Constitution." And to people like Andy-Pandy Sullivan (and probably Ben F.)as the Who said more than 4 decades ago-- "Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss!". Sorry Andy/BenF., creatures like Holder and 'Bam are not interested in the Constitution and liberty, they are all about the power. Somebody else has it-- they want it-- when they get get-- they're gonna use it and they're gonna keep it-- and they ain't gonna show no stinkin' warrant.

There is ample support over a very lengthy period of time for killing outlaws whenever and wherever they are found. The extrajudicial process of making the 'clear and present danger' finding seems to be quite onerous and those named as outlaws have been given the opportunity to surrender and defend themselves in court.

I appreciate TM's highlighting the duplicitous efforts of the NYT propagandists.

Jim,
I see JOMers mention various locales, is there a NorCal contingent?

Sure is! Elliott is just south of San Francisco (when he is home), Macphisto is in the southern part of the East Bay (I think), Enlightened is in Cordelia Junction, I'm in Auburn, and Ignatz is an hour south of me. There's also an EastBayJay, but his location is not certain (there's more than one East Bay).

“A popular column on Townhall.com – the self-described “leading conservative and political opinion website” – discussing Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president has unexplainably disappeared.

Earlier today, the column “Sheriff Joe Exposes Forgery of Obama’s Selective Service Registration” by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown of The Western Center For Journalism was Townhall.com’s most emailed and eighth most read column.

But then … it was gone.

Even after WND alerted Townhall.com’s managing editor that the column had been deleted from its site, it remained listed as “cannot be found.” And despite multiple contacts with the site’s editorial staff, no one at Townhall.com would explain to WND why the column was removed.

Floyd Brown is a regular columnist on Townhall.com, with multiple columns in the site’s archive listed for every month since 2008.

“I hope that it’s not the result of any type of intentional censorship; that would be my sincere hope,” Brown told WND of the removal of his column. “The article is obviously being well received and highly read and highly emailed by the Townhall audience, so why they would want to keep people from seeing it – that would really shock me.”

Still, Brown told WND, if it were intentional, it wouldn’t be the first time even “conservative” media has tried to sweep the story under the rug.

“I have seen conservative media be almost more diligent in censoring on the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility,” Brown said. “Even though they criticize it on one hand, they all have a desire to be loved by mainstream media.””

daddy-with your love of history, you would tremble when your read how many education professors are teaching the future teachers and administrators that thinking should not be privileged over thinking.

Guess what type of mind embraces such nonsense? The weak ones. The resentful ones. Those are the new principals and superintendents. The ones in charge.

((Back to Tocqueville: "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: Equality. But notice the difference. While democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." The equality of socialism is everybody equally miserable, everybody equally wanting, everybody equally unhappy. Not liberty, but equality in restraint and servitude. "America is great," Tocqueville concludes here, "because she's good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith." The greatest threat that the nation faces is the absence, right now, of a moral core. Any attempt to establish one is fought tooth and nail by those who do not want one.))

When you have an educational framework, that views students as autonomous, hence they can't
really be subject to discipline, that is amoral about founding principles, that regards
God as the great interloper, but not the AGW
mythos, this is the result.

You mentioned picking up the the Schlaes book documenting Red Roosevelt's Excellent Adventure. The account of the Commie Cruise that culminated with six hours with Stalin and a position in the Roosevelt Administration shortly afterwards provides documentation regarding a timeline for relatively recent perfidy. The Copperheads go better with "a long time ago" when discussing Democrat betrayal.

"The 'torture' memos released by Holder and Obma were vital to an informed public Bush-bashing debate. But the assassination memos? Not so topical."

Well, no.
You'll get that a lot with "not news" which was actually covered when it was news.
Jan 2010 was when the Obama admin said they would do this.
Sept 2011 was when they did.
March 2012 is when you're talking about this not being so topical.

RickB-- completely agree that the NYT are duplicitous propogandists and I too appreciate TM highlighting that. One quibble-- I ASSUME 'Bam made a POTUS 'Finding' of Awlaki being a clear and present danger but there's no report that the Finding was disclosed to the Joint Intelligence subcommittee that hears classified testimony about covert action. Apparently, in this Finding, 'Bam utilized the 9/11 Resolution to go after AQ anywhere, and the Finding was the basis for written orders to Central Command to Hellfire Awlaki. That's it, 'Bam was, judge, jury, execdutioner and NO DISCLOSURE under general National Security laws and protocols. I disagree with that; the POTUS has a duty to follow the 1975 Nat'l Sec laws (plus amendments) and disclose what he's done. When it leaks, deal with it, and voters get to decide.

--"America is great," Tocqueville concludes here, "because she's good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."--

Unfortunately, Chubby, I believe that is one of those quotes that was nver actually said or written by its supposed author.
Kind of like Burke not saying "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing."

Sue-- starting 8 years ago (yes right after Bush supported DOMA) I started having these email debates with Andy Sullivan about harsh/cruel interrogation and killing AQ. Sully kept to the party line that it was OK to kill AQ anytime, but once you detain them they had to be treated just like a POW. Putting aside the whole Geneva Convention issue (and that it's an insult to US military to say AQ has the same rights as them, when in fact AQ are criminals under the GCs) on a moral plane my point was how can you condemn harshly interrogating -- and in 3 cases cruelly waterboarding-- AQ, when the purpose is to gain information to save innocents, but at the same time say killing anywhere anytime was OK? Andy's answer? TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE!! Ok. So Sue, it's not "asshat", it's mental illness. These Leftists believe they are good, so they can do anything they please to serve that 'good'. Mental illness.

I have a funny voting story. Amy and I went to vote early this AM as is our tradition. They have started a new precinct in my town, precinct #3 which I am a part of. Precinct 3 was voting in a different room than precinct 1 and 2.

So I show my ID (not required) and get my ballot and some woman comes in from the other room and said: "Someone in the other precinct wants to talk to you, but you can't leave the room." So I go to the doorway and across the hall Amy yells: "You are on the ballot, do you want me to vote for you?" And sure enough, there was my name on the ballot for republican town committee. I had no idea I was running (and I'm pretty sure its a formality) but it was very funny to see my name in lights - so to speak.

Narc-- I don't know if Sully is 'insane' (although I do wonder if the cocktail of powerful HIV meds he's been taking for almost 20 years has affected his brain), but I do know Olbermann is an idiot and buffoon.

Sullivan went bonkers in about 2006-7. I remember it distinctly. I had been one of those saps who had initially contributed to his blog and watched him daily.
It could be the HIV. It could be that in DC's substantial gay community he felt like an outcast.

Right now , of course, there's still the question of his right to permanent residency after his drug arrest I think, adding to the mix.

When is AQ going to drum up street riots to protest the treatment of OBL's body?

I'm sympathetic to Holder's argument--I've made it myself here--that the judiciary has not said that due process means, in these circumstances, the same thing it means when an accused criminal has been taken into custody. I dob't think it ever will say such a thing.

While I agree that in wartime the President could seek to kill even an American who was fighting for the other side. That doesn't seem particualarly difficult to conclude.

On the other hand, Holder's forumulation is rather short on thought. One merely starts with the requirement of due process. The next question is what process is due. Due process is not different from "judicial process," whatever that is. Taking a matter before a judge is merely one of the processes that might be due.

According to Holder, the process due an American is rather scant and is not going to be revealed in full. Ordinarily, we are told the rules before they are enforced, including the procedure rules.

CaptH-- AliceH best sums up what I see as "mental illness" and insanity being a small subset. Out of respect for memories of Sully's brilliant writing 1990-2005, I never read any of Sully's Palin stuff. It must have been pitiful and bizarre.

Clarice-- I only met Sully once in NYC in the '90s through a good friend; we were email pals for 6 years. It will sound trite but he had a giant intellect, and a big heart. 2005 on? I don't know, I accused him of wanting to go to the 'right' cocktail parties in DC, and make the most dough-- he denied it all and said he was sincere in hating th Right because of 'theocracy' --who knows. The last real email conversations we had were over the Schiavo debacle and John Paul II's final days-- he sounded serious and thoughtful in those private emails, but he had become an utter joke in his public writings. I guess he's a married man with a couple of mortgages so, saying the 'right' things makes the most bucks. As the Brits say "Queer as folk."

MarkO-- very thoughtful post about 'due process'. And I agree that in a war 'due process' does not necessarily mean judicial review-- i.e getting a warrant to kill an American AQ in foreign territory. But as you say, we all need to demand more from Holder and 'Bam-- what are the rules? what are the procedures? Bush did that in the enemy combatant rules, both for battlefield detention and detention in the US. Of course Holder and his ilk constantly sued Bush in federal Court-- now Holder wants to give an little speech and walk away saying don't bother me about details. That's truly outrageous, that's mental illness. I think the rules already do exist-- if the POTUS makes a Finding that a US citizen is an imminent AQ danger, that gets disclosed to the Joint Intelligence committee just like any other covert action Finding.

Not if Tribe were giving the grade. Why should Holder be presumed to possess a better grasp of Constitutional law than the President? Does Columbia equip its AA admissions in a manner that is distinguishable from Harvard?

RickB/MarkO-- wait-- there IS a distinct constitutional difference between 'due process' and judicial review based in the POTUS's inherent authority as CINC and in times of war. Think about FDR's military tribunals to execute Nazi saboteurs and war criminals -- no Judicial review there, Lincoln suspending Habeas altogether, and FDR detaining US civilians in concentration camps (Korematsu -- Habeas denied) and executive renditions by Clinton/Bush. So Holder is on firm constituional ground-- but the refusal to disclose to any other elected official in sworn testimony what was done-- that's so wrong on so many levels-- and hypocritical in the extreme.